Report 773
Report #773 Skillset: Bonecrusher Skill: Pulp Org: Serenguard Status: Completed Feb 2012 Furies' Decision: We will implement solution 1. Problem: Currently Pulp is an 8p transcendent skill that allows a bonecrusher to do a targeted double-swing with an approximate 1.3x modifier per hand that hits. The skill supposedly also has a heightened chance of procing higher level wound afflictions. There are, however, some drawbacks to the ability that make it extremely underused in combat. For starters, warrior is a very power-heavy archetype and it is very rare that one would have 8 power to expend when a skill like pulp would be advantageous. Further, unlike its closest analogue, haymaker, it does not strip shields, bypass rebounding nor get around any defenses that a crush would. This report aims to suggest solutions that would increase pulp's usefulness in a bonecrusher's arsenal. 0 R: 0 Solution #1: Allow a user to pulp with each arm independently for added flexibility. Therefore, turning the skill into a 4 power version of what it currently is and allowing one swing per pulp. Its other properties should remain the same. 0 R: 0 Solution #2: Same as solution 1 but taking 3 power per arm instead. Player Comments: ---on 1/23 @ 18:44 writes: Solution #1 supported. I see pulp as intended to be a finisher, yet the combination of having some base wounding, waiting for the 8p to actually use it, and putting someone in state where stance/parry/rebounding won't obstruct the pulp generally means that wounds have been cured out of the danger-zone in which it has a chance of triggering a critical aff. Quick testing puts lower end of danger-zone at ~2000 wounds (critical is 3750+), with a successful two-hit pulp with 250 (+15% wounding rune) precision hammers and 20 str/16 dex doing ~1750 wounding on 53/54 robes. ---on 2/7 @ 17:35 writes: What if we simply let it bypass shielding/rebounding? 8p is hefty. Definitely finisher power cost range. It seems simpler to do that, and it isn't as if anyone is going to spam it, bar REFRESH POWER, and well, if you're blowing 16 power and a day-restricted cooldown, you should get some bang for your buck. ---on 2/7 @ 23:54 writes: Hrm, I think that even if it bypassed shielding/rebounding it still wouldn't be enough to encourage increased use. I think its problem stems from the opportunity cost of the 8p. For example, one alternative use of 8p is four crush chest/leg and smite down combos. Here you're building on two bodyparts, and more than likely proning, allowing an unhindered (excepting rebounding) smite down that can land pulp's swing afflictions on your target's head/chest. Granted this is four, if not five, balances (razing may be required) to pulp's one, but as detailed in my first comment, the ~2000 base wounding necessary for pulp to have a -chance- of landing a bashbrain is not really feasible to build up without crushes, and waiting for the power to be regenerated means your target has time to cure out of the danger-zone. Making it arm independent would allow a similar combo to the above, a proning crush + pulp for a total of 6p, with the lower end of the danger zone increased to ~2,800 wounds, making it somewhat more feasible. Without the proning crush, there's a chance for a 4p pulp ender, however this is then subject to stance/parry/rebounding. ---on 2/12 @ 18:18 writes: I know Akui already left her thoughs but I wanted to say that I support Solution 1. It makes a lot more sense seeing as you do have 2 arm balance recoveries as a bonecrusher and ought to be able to choose which power goes with each arm. I don't wanna see the power cost go down though. ---on 2/14 @ 22:53 writes: I considered your solution idea, Akui, but the problem is, 8p is not expected of a warrior during the end-game. Such a minor change would still leave the skill unused, much like its blademaster counterpart. ---on 2/15 @ 02:10 writes: Solution 1. ---on 2/29 @ 02:51 writes: Don't reduce the power cost. I guess I don't see a huge issue with making pulp 4p for 1 arm, long as it's not also able to bypass parry / stance / rebounding (because it is a swing). ---on 2/29 @ 14:55 writes: Correct. The intention was to leave its properties as is but allow more flexibility through dividing the power costs. I'm not overly keen on reducing the powercost either. Admittedly its more of a perfunctory solution than anything else.